Literature DB >> 17272206

Detection of chromosome aberrations in the second trimester using genetic amniocentesis: experience during 1995-2004.

Jenn-Jhy Tseng1, Min-Min Chou, Feng-Chu Lo, Hui-Yu Lai, Min-Hui Chen, Esther Shih-Chu Ho.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To retrospectively investigate the 10-year experience of prenatal diagnosis of fetal chromosome aberrations by second-trimester amniocentesis.
METHODS: Data were collected at Taichung Veterans General Hospital between 1995 and 2004 from cytogenetic analyses of cultured amniocytes from second-trimester amniocentesis. The main indications for amniocentesis included advanced maternal age, abnormal maternal serum screening results, and abnormal ultrasound findings. Chromosome aberrations included autosomal aneuploidies, sex chromosome aneuploidies, polyploidies, and rearrangements. Variant chromosomes were considered to be normal and excluded.
RESULTS: A total of 7,028 amniocenteses were performed and analyzed for chromosome aberrations. Among these, 4,026 (57.29%) were for advanced maternal age, 1,500 (21.34%) for abnormal maternal serum screening results, 553 (7.87%) for abnormal ultrasound findings, and 949 (13.50%) for other reasons. The highest detection rate of chromosome aberrations was in cases undergoing amniocentesis for abnormal ultrasound findings (8.86%), followed by other reasons (2.74%), abnormal maternal serum screening results (2.60%), and advanced maternal age (2.31%). Chromosome aberrations were detected in 207 cases (2.90%), including fetuses of 93 older mothers, 39 mothers with abnormal serum screening results, 49 mothers with abnormal ultrasound findings, and 26 mothers with other reasons for amniocentesis. Of fetuses with chromosome aberrations, 144 (69.56%) had trisomy 13, trisomy 18, trisomy 21, or sex chromosome disorder. The other 63 cases (30.44%) included balanced translocation, unbalanced abnormality, inversion, and marker chromosome.
CONCLUSION: For daily practice, our data could offer a database for proper genetic counseling, such as termination issues and future pregnancies.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 17272206     DOI: 10.1016/S1028-4559(09)60188-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol        ISSN: 1028-4559            Impact factor:   1.705


  10 in total

1.  The importance of screening and prenatal diagnosis in the identification of the numerical chromosomal abnormalities.

Authors:  Daniela Neagos; Ruxandra Cretu; Roxana Corina Sfetea; Laurentiu Camil Bohiltea
Journal:  Maedica (Bucur)       Date:  2011-07

2.  The importance of rapid aneuploidy screening and prenatal diagnosis in the detection of numerical chromosomal abnormalities.

Authors:  Ghada M Elsayed; Lobna El Assiouty; Ezzat S El Sobky
Journal:  Springerplus       Date:  2013-09-29

3.  Uniparental disomy and prenatal phenotype: Two case reports and review.

Authors:  Xiaofei Li; Yan Liu; Song Yue; Li Wang; Tiejuan Zhang; Cuixia Guo; Wenjie Hu; Karl-Oliver Kagan; Qingqing Wu
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2017-11       Impact factor: 1.817

4.  The impact of prenatal screening tests on prenatal diagnosis in Taiwan from 2006 to 2019: a regional cohort study.

Authors:  Ching Hua Hsiao; Ching Hsuan Chen; Po Jen Cheng; Steven W Shaw; Woei Chyn Chu; Ran Chou Chen
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2022-01-09       Impact factor: 3.007

5.  Prenatal Diagnosis Nomograms: A Novel Tool to Predict Fetal Chromosomal Abnormalities in High-Risk Patients.

Authors:  Yangzi Zhou; Zixuan Song; Lu Sun; Yuting Wang; Xiting Lin; Dandan Zhang
Journal:  Risk Manag Healthc Policy       Date:  2021-11-04

6.  Frequency and clinical significance of chromosomal inversions prenatally diagnosed by second trimester amniocentesis.

Authors:  Chih-Wei Chien; An-Shine Chao; Yao-Lung Chang; Kuan-Ju Chen; Hsiu-Huei Peng; Yu-Ting Lin; Angel Chao; Shuenn-Dyh Chang
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-02-09       Impact factor: 4.379

7.  Prediction, prevention and personalisation of medication for the prenatal period: genetic prenatal tests for both rare and common diseases.

Authors:  Munis Dundar; Asli Subasioglu Uzak; Murat Erdogan; Yagut Akbarova
Journal:  EPMA J       Date:  2011-05-06       Impact factor: 6.543

8.  Detection rates of clinically significant genomic alterations by microarray analysis for specific anomalies detected by ultrasound.

Authors:  Lisa G Shaffer; Jill A Rosenfeld; Mindy P Dabell; Justine Coppinger; Anne M Bandholz; Jay W Ellison; J Britt Ravnan; Beth S Torchia; Blake C Ballif; Allan J Fisher
Journal:  Prenat Diagn       Date:  2012-07-30       Impact factor: 3.050

9.  Why do patients decline amniocentesis? Analysis of factors influencing the decision to refuse invasive prenatal testing.

Authors:  Pawel Sadlecki; Marek Grabiec; Pawel Walentowicz; Malgorzata Walentowicz-Sadlecka
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2018-05-16       Impact factor: 3.007

10.  20-year experience on prenatal diagnosis in a reference university medical genetics center in Turkey

Authors:  Burak Durmaz; Hilmi Bolat; Zehra Cengisiz; Fuat Akercan; Tuba Sözen Türk; Erhan Parıltay; Aslı Ece Solmaz; Mert Kazandı; Emin Karaca; Asude Durmaz; Ayça Aykut; Sermet Sağol; Haluk Akın; Ferda Özkınay; ÖzgÜr Çoğulu
Journal:  Turk J Med Sci       Date:  2021-08-30       Impact factor: 0.973

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.